The Russian government has claimed that the Western powers promised at the end of the Cold War not to expand NATO, but later reneged on that promise. Most former officials in the West, and many scholars as well, have denied that this was the case; but other scholars, along with a handful of former officials, believe that promises to that effect were, in fact, made in 1990.
So who is right? The question still has political importance: how it is answered has bearing on how we should feel about NATO expansion and, indeed, about the United States’ post–Cold War policy more generally. So it makes sense to stand back and try to see where the truth lies.
An examination of the debate in light of the evidence—especially evidence that the participants themselves have presented—leads to the conclusion that the Russian allegations are by no means baseless, which affects how the U.S.-Russian relationship today is to be understood.
Here’s an easily digested chronology of the “Not one inch eastward” assurances along with the supporting documentation compiled from the National Security Archives by George Washington University. It makes a compelling case.
The counter argument is that the promises were made to the Soviet Union which no longer exists.
The counter-counter argument is that nato had already begun to break the promise before the SU voted to dissolve itself.
The counter-counter-counter argument is that the promises didn’t amount to treaties.
The counter-counter-counter-counter argument is that 99% of intergovernmental agreements aren’t treaties and that nato isn’t capable of entering a treaty because it’s just an organisation.
The counter-counter-counter-counter-counter argument is that might makes right, so what are you going to do about it?
The counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter argument is that we’re doing it right now – beginning in Ukraine.
Things that **don’t** exist: a bilateral treaty promising not to expand NATO
Things that **do** exist: the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in which Russia agreed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine
Bottom line is NATO never made an agreement with USSR or Russia to let other countries who are willing to join an alliance, not join.
I remember the US diplomat who came up with the containment doctrine against the USSR writing an op-ed ranting against the expansion once Poland was accepted.
He called it the greatest post-cold war american error and said this was the end of any possible long term peace with Russia.
These were made to the Soviet Union which was dissolved by Russian, Ukraine, Belarus etc.
None of the assurances benefit Russia. No Russian action against Ukraine is justified. Ukraine is free to make its own Sovereign decisions.
Russia will be further ostracised from the international community should it invade Ukraine.
6 comments
The Russian government has claimed that the Western powers promised at the end of the Cold War not to expand NATO, but later reneged on that promise. Most former officials in the West, and many scholars as well, have denied that this was the case; but other scholars, along with a handful of former officials, believe that promises to that effect were, in fact, made in 1990.
So who is right? The question still has political importance: how it is answered has bearing on how we should feel about NATO expansion and, indeed, about the United States’ post–Cold War policy more generally. So it makes sense to stand back and try to see where the truth lies.
An examination of the debate in light of the evidence—especially evidence that the participants themselves have presented—leads to the conclusion that the Russian allegations are by no means baseless, which affects how the U.S.-Russian relationship today is to be understood.
Here’s an easily digested chronology of the “Not one inch eastward” assurances along with the supporting documentation compiled from the National Security Archives by George Washington University. It makes a compelling case.
[“Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner”](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)
The counter argument is that the promises were made to the Soviet Union which no longer exists.
The counter-counter argument is that nato had already begun to break the promise before the SU voted to dissolve itself.
The counter-counter-counter argument is that the promises didn’t amount to treaties.
The counter-counter-counter-counter argument is that 99% of intergovernmental agreements aren’t treaties and that nato isn’t capable of entering a treaty because it’s just an organisation.
The counter-counter-counter-counter-counter argument is that might makes right, so what are you going to do about it?
The counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter argument is that we’re doing it right now – beginning in Ukraine.
Things that **don’t** exist: a bilateral treaty promising not to expand NATO
Things that **do** exist: the Budapest Memorandum of 1994 in which Russia agreed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine
Bottom line is NATO never made an agreement with USSR or Russia to let other countries who are willing to join an alliance, not join.
I remember the US diplomat who came up with the containment doctrine against the USSR writing an op-ed ranting against the expansion once Poland was accepted.
He called it the greatest post-cold war american error and said this was the end of any possible long term peace with Russia.
These were made to the Soviet Union which was dissolved by Russian, Ukraine, Belarus etc.
None of the assurances benefit Russia. No Russian action against Ukraine is justified. Ukraine is free to make its own Sovereign decisions.
Russia will be further ostracised from the international community should it invade Ukraine.